[wg-b] Creation of Famous List

["Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>]

Milton if you read the status report that I sent to the Names Counsel you
will have found that WG-B has not officially backed the creation of a famous
marks. However, if you look at the position papers submitted during the
comment period you will find that most, NOT all, support the creation of a
famous marks list. Additionally, in Cairo the registrars which previously
had opposed the creation of a list were willing to back the creation of a
famous marks list by WIPO as long as it was used as part of a sunrise period
and not as part of a filtering mechanism. If you do the math, you will
probably find that there is now enough Names Counsel votes to back the
creation of a list.

As previously stated, a report needs to be submitted to the Names Counsel by
April 15th. Based upon the composition and history of this working group I
serious doubt that we will arrive at a consensus document by then. Instead,
the report that will be submitted will detail the history and progress of
this working group and the remaining areas of disagreement.

Yes I have been following the UDRP.  Although there are some decisions that
I question, I believe it is working.

I respect that you may disagree with the registrars proposal about limiting
the use of the sunrise period in certain domains. If the non-commercial
constituency thinks it is of no value, I will discuss with the registrars
removing it since it would most likely further increase our changes of
reaching a compromise with the Intellectual property constituency.

I understand your concerns about WIPO and I am working on some proposals
that I will share with the group in the next couple of days that may
address, but not fully resolve, these concerns.

In Cairo, the registrars individually and collectively met with the members
from the Intellectual Property Constituency, some Business constituency
members, and representatives from the Registry Constituency (NSI). In
addition, I have discussed the progress of these negotiations with Kathy
Kleiman, Eric Menge and several other individuals from the ccTLD and ISP
community. Most of these constituencies and individuals are now evaluating
their next step and should be getting back to me shortly. I look forward to
receiving their feedback in an effort to build further consensus prior to
the April 15th deadline. After Cairo the Registrars held a telephone
conference and quickly agreed on a compromise position. I am drafting that
revised document for the registrars as I respond to the various WG-B posts
that I receive. It is the goal of the registrars to building a registration
authority consensus for the document that they are preparing, since it
opposed the use of filters in the registration process a common theme among
all registration authorities.

I hope that I answered all of your questions and addressed your concerns.

Mike

P.S. I apologize for the flood of e-mail that has hit most list
participant's mailboxes over the past couple of days. However, I thought it
important to apprise the group of the looming deadline and the efforts of
certain constituencies to forge consensus. Failure to do so in my opinion
would not be keeping with the open and transparent process by which ICANN is
suppose to follow.




-----Original Message-----
From:	Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent:	Saturday, March 25, 2000 5:46 PM
To:	mpalage@infonetworks.com; Mikki Barry; wg-b@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>

> issues. They like the idea of WIPO creating the list because it is an
> inter-governmental agency that cannot be sued. Therefore immunity starts
> with the creation of the list and they are further insulated if ICANN
> mandates it upon registration authorities.

When did this working group decide that there would be ANY list?
It should be evident to anyone watching the UDRP results that trademark
holders are being given quite extensive protection. There is no need for any
special protections for famous marks, whatsoever.

> However, the Registrars are
> sensitive to the Non-commercial and free speech concerns and have
> preliminarily backed excluding charter non-commercial top-level domains
from
> this sunrise program.  Therefore their concerns should be addressed.

They are not addressed. Any creation of a global magic words list,
unencumbered by law, is a serious danger to free expression advocates.

> The concerns of the small businesses should also be protected if WIPO uses
> discretion in creating the list in a responsible manner, which there is no
> reason to believe that they shouldn't.

Then you haven't paid any attention to WIPO's record in the past two years.

> I understand that this insight is less than ideal to several people on
this
> list, but at least it is an effort among certain constituencies to put
aside
> past differences and move toward a common ground.

I see only two constituencies represented here, Michael: yours and the famou
smark holders.